Continuing the debate on moral philosophy:
Please see Darren Bennett's excellent comment on AS44 here:
http://atheisticallyspeaking.com/as44-moral-landscape-ryan-born-part-2-2/
It's thought provoking, at least for me. And also AS46 went into the issue a bit deeper, and Thomas himself admitted to subscribing largely to rule utilitarianism, which I can get on board with a lot more. This is a form of consequentialism that effectively also involves deontology. In the comments the general feeling is a little too anti-philosophy and simple consequentialist (act consequentialist) for my liking though.
I'll address Darren's comment at some point on the website, because I have a couple of counterpoints for him.
The challenge has been put forward to justify some form of moral ethics other than act utilitarianism. I'll try to do this, as I'm still not convinced that wellbeing is the only thing worth looking at, even for consequentialists. I still can't fully subscribe to pure act-based consequentialism. I think I prefer rule utilitarianism.
In the comments for AS46, Rod says " I found myself in complete agreement with you that a population of 100,000 very happy and fulfilled individuals would definitely be “better” than 100 trillion miserable people. “Better” in this case must surely mean a higher overall well-being score."
I found myself wanting to ask the following questions.
"But would 100 trillion very happy and fulfilled individuals not be better still?
If "no", it's clear that the total amount of wellbeing is less relevant than the average of each individual. In this case, we have a clear counter-example. Why should people not be looking for ways to reduce the population in order to increase the per-individual wellbeing score? Would people that try to stop this be selfish? And can these question be answered without invoking deontological considerations?
If "yes", why not try and get there now? Isn't it a bit selfish of us to deny more people the same wellbeing we enjoy? Why not start to breed like rabbits(?!) And again, can these questions be answered without invoking deontological considerations?"
This is not good enough. I was struggling for a better critique than just asking questions. What is the main issue with consequentialism? I was actually about to give up on this whole exercise when it struck me. I didn't want to go trawling through Kant's works, after all (I do have a life, although some would argue with that assertion...)
Staying Gold
How did deontology come about? In its early conceptualisation, must it not have consequentialist roots? "We follow rules because rules lead to better consequences" ? Surely not. There must be more to it.
Again, it seemed that everything went back to consequentialism. Then came my epiphany, and it was a moment of catharsis. Swedish female duo First Aid Kit singing a song called "Staying Gold". It's a gorgeously beautiful track.
Here we have it. This hits the nail on the head. To me, staying gold represents living up to the best standards you can and following your best rules. When we do this, and things go our way, the feeling of pride is palpable.
Let's draw a counter- example: the ultimate consequentialist, Jack Bauer from the TV show 24. He's done some unspeakable things in trying to save the world from evil terrorists. He's sacrificed so much. Maybe the world needs some people like this. But we wouldn't want everybody to be like him. He may be hero, but really, who'd want to actually be him?
I've found what for me is the simplest justification of deontology, and most cutting criticism of consequentialism. It's simply this: Uncertainty.
We all bow out sooner or later, and It simply feels better for people to die knowing that they have lived trying to do the best they can. And with consequentialism, nothing is ever finalised for sure. What you've done in the past, and may have thought was good, can come back via the "butterfly effect" and bite you on the ass. You may die not even knowing if the future good effects you'd banked on will come to fruition. Deontology can offer a feel-good alternative.
This is, if I may say so myself, a staggering analogy to the athesim / theism dilemma. Theism feels better in the short term, but atheism ultimately makes more sense. Likewise, deontology can maybe feel better during the course of your life, but consequentialism ultimately makes more sense as it also (at least in theory) takes into account the consequences of your actions after you die.
No doubt many ardent consequentialists out there will find fault with this reasoning. My only comeback would be, I think this does at least offer some rationale for the philosophical origins of deontology, as a function of the human psyche demanding the solutions that offer the most comfort in a cold and cruel world. Or, rather, my own reinvention of this particular wheel, as it were. In an age where most people did not have the intellectual or computational resources to make accurate judgements of consequences, deontology could have offered an appealing alternative. And it is, at least, somewhat more rational than theism.
So, in conclusion:
My chief concern with consequentialism is thus. Its biggest problem is uncertainty. The uncertainty due to chaotic, unpredicatble events, which even supercomputers may have trouble with. The uncertainty caused by having faulty or incomplete information when making decisions. The uncertainty due to my own limited cognitive resources.
The trolley problem, redux
Will definite right/wrong divides be established for examples like the trolley problem? Will we be able to say that not pulling the lever is definitely the wrong decision and if I do that I should be punished for it? I for one, still have doubts.
On Atheistically Speaking, it seems that everyone has unilaterally decided that pulling the lever is the "right" decision. But in a real life situation that mimicked the trolley problem, I'm not sure I could do it; and I'm also not sure that this a bad thing.
To me, performing "no action" relating to the lever results in the status quo being maintained and the 5 people being killed - but to me this is an accident. Unless I sabotaged the trolley's brakes, I would not be to blame for this. The chain of events was set into motion outside my control. However, pulling the lever is a conscious decision I've made to perform a positive action resulting in another's death. It's not an accident. It's unlawful killing and I would be devastated.
Sure, I would have problems living with making this decision but I would also have problems living with the consequences of pulling the lever. In fact I think I'd end up doing myself in over it, which is the ultimate negative consequence for me.
In conclusion, the trolley problem is a complex moral dilemma which I'm not sure there is a "right" answer to. To me, either pulling or not pulling the lever would be permissible, but neither result would be necessarily "correct" or easy to live with. If consequentialism says that "you must pull the lever", I'm not sure I like it...but in almost every way, trying to escape from consequences is pointless. This is my lament.
Buy it here:
https://itunes.apple.com/gb/album/stay-gold/id845312934?i=845313040
"What if our hard work ends in despair?
What if the road won't take me there?
Oh, I wish, for once, we could stay gold
What if to love and be loved's not enough?
What if I fall and can't bear to get up?
Oh, I wish, for once, we could stay gold
We could stay gold"
***
No comments:
Post a Comment